Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED121160: Student Assistance: Participants and Programs 1974-75. Higher Education Panel Reports, No. 27."

See other formats


OOCDHEST SESOBE 



ED 121 160 



HE 007 581 



AOTHOB 
TITLE 

INSTITUTION 
SPOHS aCEHCY 



PDB DATE 
NOTE 

AVAILABLE FHOa 



EOES PEICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 



Atelsek, Frank J*; Gomherg, Irene L* 

Stadent Assistance: Participants and Programs 

197a-75. Higher Education Panel Reports, No. 27, 

American coancil on Education, Washington, D*C* 

National Institutes of Health (DHEff) , Bethesda, Hd.; 

National Science Foundation, Washington, 0* C* ; Office 

of Education (DHEH) , f?ashington, D.C. 

Dec 75 

«7p. 

Higher Education Panel, American Council on 
Education, One Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. 20036 
(free J 

HF"$0.83 HC*$2.06 Plus Postage 

♦Educational Finance; *Higher Education; Incentive 
Grants: ^Participant Characteristics; *Student Costs; 
♦Student Financial Aid; Student Loan Programs; 
Surveys; Tables (Data) ; Tuition Grants; Work Study 
Programs 

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program; College 
Work Study Program; Guaranteed Student Loan Program; 
National Direct Student Loan Program; State Student 
Incentive Grant Program; Supplemental Educational 
Opportunity Grant Program 



ABSTRACT 

This survey vas designed to collect information for 
the 1971**75 academic year on th^ extent of student participation in 
Office of Education programs, the characteristics of aid recipients, 
student charges and the amounts and sources of student aid available 
at institutions of higher education, and to elicit suggestions for 
improving the operation of federal student aid programs. The six 
programs for which data were requested are: (1) Basic Educational 
Opportunity Grant Program (BBOG) ; (2) Supplemental Educational 
Opportunity Grant Program (SEOG) ; (3) State Student Incentive Grant 
Program (SSIG) ; (4) College fifork-Study Program (CVS); (5) National 
Direct Student Loan Program (NDSL) ; and (6) Guaranteed Student Loan 
Program (GSL) . The survey questionnaire was sent to all 644 memhers 
of the Higher Education Panel of the American Council on Education. 
Suggestions for improvement fell into two main headings: 
administration and program design. {Author/RE) 



* Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal Gnpuhlished * 

* materials not availahle from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * 

* to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * 

* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * 

* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes availahle * 

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDES). EDRS is not * 

* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions * 

* supplied hy EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. * 



ERLC 



Student Assistance: 
Participants and Programs 

1974-75 

Frank J. Atelsek and Irene L Gomberg 





HIGHER EDUCATfON PANEL REPORTS, NUMBER 27 
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION 



DECEMBER 
1975 



ERIC 



A Survey Funded by the National Science Foundation, the U. S. Office of Education. 

and the National Institutes of Health. 



AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION 
Roger W. Heyns, President 



The American Council on Education^ founded in 191 81 is a council of educational organiza- 
tions and institutions. Its purpose is to advance education and educationai methods through 
comprehensive voluntary and cooperative action on the part of American educational associa* 
tions. organizations, and institutions. 

The Higher Education Panel is a survey research program established by the Councii for 
the purpose of securing policy-related information quickly from representative samples of 
colleges and universities. HighBr Educa^on Pane/ Reports are designed to expedite communica- 
tion of the Panel's survey findings to policy-makers in governmenti in the associations, and in 
educational institutions across the nation. 

The Higher Education Panel's surveys on behalf of the Federal (government are conducted 
under grant support provided jointly by the National Science Foundationi the National Institutes 
of Health, and the U. S. Office of Education (NSF Grant SRS-7517251). 



STAFF OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION PANEL 

Frenk J. Atelsek. Pane/ Director 
Inane L. Gomberg. Sen/or Research Analyst 
Nabil Issa, Programmer 
Eiaine Chamberlaini Project Secretary 

HEP ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Lyte H. Lanier. Director Officeof Administrative Affairs and Educational Statistics. 
ACE. Chairman 

John A. Creager. Director. Division of Educational Statisticsi ACE 

W. Todd Furniss. Director. Office of Academic Affairs. ACE 

John F. Hughesi Director. Policy Analysis Service. ACE 

Charles V. Kiddi Executive Secretary* Association of American Universities 

J. Boyd Page. Presldenti Council of Graduate Schools in the United States 

FEDERAL ADVISORY BOARD 

Charles E. Falk* National Science Foundationi Chairman 
Richard A. Giza, National Institutes of Health (Acting) 
George E Hall, Office of Management and Budget 
Richard T. Sonnergren. U. S. Office of Education 
Felix H. Lindsay* National Science Foundationi Secretary 

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY BOARD 

Martin Frankel* U. S. Office of Education. Chairman 
Nancy M. Conlon, National Science Foundation 
Tavia Gordon* National Institutes of Health 



Additional copies of Ihl3 report areavaiiabJe from the Higher Education Panel* American Council on Educa- 
tion. One DuPont Circlep Wa$hrnaton* D. C. 20036. 



STUDENT ASSISTANCE: 
PARTICIPANTS AND PROGRAMS, JSy't-yS 



Frank J- Atelsek 
Irene L* Gomberg 



Higher Education Panel Reports 
Number 27 December 1975 



American Council on Education 
Washington, D*C* 20036 



4 



Acknowledgments 



As with all Panel surveys this report on student assistance programs 
reflects the efforts of many persons and groups. In particular^ we wish 
to acknowledge Richard Sonnergren of the Office of Education, and the 
staff of the Policy Analysis Service at the American Council on Education 
for their considerable help In shaping the survey Instrument and the 
content of the report. The survey also benefited from suggestions 
offered by the members of the HEP advisory groups (listed on the Inside 
cover of thts report). 

Computer-related services were ably provided by Nabil Issa and Clay 
Henderson* Laura Kent edited the manuscript^ and Elaine Chamberlain 
typed and patiently guided It from rough draft to final form. 

Finally^ as always^ our special thanks are due our Panel repre^ 
sentatives and the financial aid officials at the responding colleges 
and universities. We hope the results are useful to them* 



ERIC 



5 



High Ugh ts 



Description of Students Assisted 

m 1,6 million students received aid through Office of Education 
assistance programs; 371>000 attended two-year colleges, 
839,000 attended four-year Institutions, and 37^,000 attended 
universities* 

• 95 percent of all aid recipients were undergraduates; 5 percent 
were graduate students, 

• One"th!rd of the assisted students were minority-group members, 

• More than two-fifths of the dependent undergraduates receiving 
aid were from families with gross incomes of less than $7,500, 



Use of Assistance Programs 

• 3,188,000 separate awards were made under the six OE programs: 

Program No, of Awards Average Award 

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG) 543,000 $ 620 

Supplemental Educational Opportuni ty Grant (SEOG) 350,000 5^0 

State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) 302,000 600 

College Work-Study (CWS) 575,000 560 

National Direct Student Loan {NDSL) 7^9,000 69O 

Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) 669,000 1,250 

• Minority students received almost half of the BEOG and SEOG awards 
but only about one-fifth of the SSIG and GSL awards. 

• Undergraduates from higher-Income families ($12,000 or more) and 
graduate students accounted for more than half of the GSL loans, 

• BEOG and SEOG recipients were more often enrolled In public 
Institutions whereas NDSL and GSL recipients were more often 
enrolled In private Institutions, 



Costs of Attending 

• On the average, basic student costs (tuition and fees plus room and 
board) were two and one-half times greater at private than at public 
institutions (private $3,340; public $1,390)* 

• Tuition costs accounted for most of this difference^ being five times 
greater at private than at public Institutions, 



6 



• In the private sector, institutions with smaller proportions of students 
receiving need-based aid reported higher-than-average tuition charges; 
those with relatively large proportions of students receiving need-based 
aid reported tuition rates well below average. The opposite pattern 
prevailed among public institutions. 



Sources of Student Aid 

• According to institutional revenue accounts, an estimated $3.9 billion was 
available for student aid from all sources, almost 10 percent of $^^0 
billion In expenditures In }^7k-75.^ 

• Of this $3.9 billion, 39 percent came from federal sources; 33 percent 
came from the institutions themselves, either directly through grants or In- 
directly through tuition waivers and remissions of other fees; 20 percent 
came from state and local government sources; and 9 percent came from 
private donors. 

• Private Institutions drew more heavily from their own funds for student 
aid (two-fifths of the funds available for such aid) than did public 

I nsti tutlons. 

• Two-year colleges were particularly dependent on federal sources, which 
provided well over two-thirds of student aid funds at thepubUc, and over 
half at the private, two-year colleges* 



Expenditure data from The Condition of Education, National Center for 
Education Statistics, Education Division tWashlngton, D.C.: U. S. Government 
Printfng Office), 1975i p, 90, 



7 



ERLC 



Table of Contents 



Paq_e_ 



Introduction 1 

Methods Summary 3 

Findings 4 

Charactertsttcs of Aid Recipients 4 

Costs of Attending 7 

Average Assistance Awards 8 

Sources of Student Aid 8 

Suggestions for Improvement JO 

References U 

Tables 13 

Appendices 

A. Survey Instrument 29 

B. Weighting Procedures 37 

C. Comparison of Respondents and Non respondents 43 



ERIC 



8 



STUDENT ASSISTANCE: 
PARTICrPANTS AND PROGRAMS, I97V75 

Frank J. Atelsek and Irene L, Gomberg 

About eighteen months ago, the Higher Education Panel reported the results 
of a survey on the Impact of Office of Education Student Assistance Programs , 
Fall, 1973 (survey Report Number 18, April 197^), All member institutions were 
asked about student participation in the (then) five Office of Education aid 
programs, student enrollment and charges for the current and preceding years, 
and the Institutions' experiences with the programs. 

As enrollments In higher education shift — particularly among minority 
groups, women, and dependent students from low-Income families — and as the 
costs of attendance continue to rise. It becomes imperative to reexamine OE 
student assistance programs (now six In number). Thus, at the request of the 
Office of Education, a second survey, reported here, was undertaken In the spring 
of 1975. 

HEP Survey #27 was designed to collect Information, for the 197^*75 academic 
year, on the extent of student participation In OE programs, the characteristics 
of aid recipients, student charges, and the amounts and sources of student aid 
available at institutions of higher education, and to elicit suggestions for 
improving the operation of federal student aid programs. 

The six programs for which data were requested are: 

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program (BEOG) : Authorized by the 
1972 Education Amendments, BEOG provides direct grants to both part-time 
and full-time students. The maximum award Is $1,400, minus an expected 
family contribution based on Income and assets; the minimum award Is $200. 
At no time may the grant exceed one-half the actual cost of attendance 
(tuition and fees, room and board, books, expenses). Freshmen students 
were eligible during the program's first year of operation (1973*7^), and 
with each succeeding year an additional class has become eligible. Thus 
full funding is anticipated during 1976-77, 



ERIC 



9 



-2- 



Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program (SEOG) : The SEOG 
program, In existence for ten years, is one of three campus - based 
student aid programs. "Campus-based" means that the funds are given 
directly to the participating Institutions which. In turn, select 
students with "exceptional'' financial need. The awards may be as great 
as one-half the total amount of student financial aid provided by the 
institution but may not exceed $1,500 annually. 

State Student Incentive Grant Program (SSIG) : Enacted under the 1972 
Education Amentments, the SSIG program began operating In 197'*" 75. 2 
Appropriations are made available to participating states and territories 
on a 50*50 matching basis, with states agreeing to maintain previously 
established funding levels. Awards up to $1,500 yearly are given to 
undergraduates who have substantial financial need and who meet specific- 
ally defined state requirements. 

Col lege Work-Study Program (CWS) : Under this campus-based financial aid 
program created In 1964, Institutions receive funds to pay 80 percent of 
the wages of students working on or off-campus In either public or non- 
profit organizations. Students must be enrolled at least half-time, 
and their earnings are limited to an amount no greater than the difference 
between their assessed financial need and the amount of other financial 
aid. 

National Direct Student Loan Program (NDSL): The oldest of the aid pro- 
grams, NDSL was enacted In I95S as the National Defense Student Loan 
Program. Participating Institutions provide 10 percent matching] funds 
for this low-Interest (3 percent), campus-based loan program. Undergrad- 
uates may borrow a maximum of $5,000; graduate students are limited to 
$10,000, including loans for undergraduate study. There Is a ten-year 
repayment period, beginning nine months after the borrower ceases full- 
time or half-time study. Up to 100 percent of the loan may be cancelled 
if the borrower takes a teaching job In an economically deprived area 
or teaches the handicapped; up to 50 percent of the loan may be cancelled 
if the borrower serves In the Armed Forces In an area of hostilities. 



Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSL) ; Under the GSL program, loans are 
made directly by the lending Institutions and guaranteed by the federal 
government or by state agencies. Undergraduates may borrow a total of 
$7,500, and graduates a total of $10,000. During the repayment period, 
which runs between five and ten years. Interest Is payable at the rate of 
7 percent. For students who qualify, interest is paid by the federal 
government during In-school, grace, and specified deferment periods. 



Fifteen out of 57 eligible jurisdictions did not participate in 197^*- 75- 

3 

Because of the newness of this program, and because of varying accounting 
methods, many Institutions were unable to separate the federal SSIG money from 
other, purely state, scholarship money in responding to this survey. Therefore, 
according to recent Office of Education data, the number of recipients reported 
here Is more than double the actual number (302,000 vs. 135,000), and the averages- 
award reported Is probably 25 percent higher than the actual ($600 vs. $^^80). 
(Information obtained through telephone conversations with the Director, SSIG 
Q Program*) 

ERIC 10 



-3- 



Methods Summary 

The Higher Education Panel Is a continuing survey research program 
established by the American Council on Education in l97l for the purpose of con- 
ducting quick'turnaround surveys on topfcs of current policy interest to the higher 
education cornnunity and to government agencies. The Panel Is based upon a network 
of campus representatives at 644 institutions broadly representative of the more 
than three thousand colleges and universities listed In the Office of Education's 
Ed^Jca^ ion Director/ 1973-74 . All Institutions in the population are categorized 
^^ *^^rms of the variables constituting the Panel's stratification design, based 
primarily on type, control, and enrollment (see Appendix B, Table B--)). 

The survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) was mailed to ail 644 Panel members 
with a request that the institution's financial aid officer complete the form. 
By the end of June 1975, the deadline for questionnaire returns, usable responses 
had been received from 505, or 78*8 percent of the sampled Institutions^. Appendix 
C {Table C-1) gives a detailed comparison of respondents and nonrespondents* 

The data from responding Institutions were statistically adjusted to represent 

the national population of 3,021 colleges and universities. Sped f I cal ly, each 

data Item was weighted, within each stratification cell, by the ratio of the number 

of institutions in the eligible population to the number of Panel institutions In 

that ceil which responded to the particular survey Item. (For a full dUcussIon of 

the weighting procedure, see Appendix B.) Therefore the data displayed In the 

tables by various instltuttonat categories apply to the total number of Institu" 

tlons IntheUnlted States, as Indicated in Appendix Table B-2*'^, 
jj 

Three service academies were later excluded because their students were wholly 
supported by the federal government; thus the sample N=64l. 

5 

it should be noted that there Is an extremely low representation of two-year 
colleges In this survey (5 percent of public, 9 percent of private). Therefore, 
caution should be exercised in Interpreting the data relative to them. 



ERLC 



11 



-4- 

Ff ndi ngs 

This report describes the weighted results of the survey, grouping Institutions 
by type (two-year colleges, four-year colleges, universities) and control (public, 
private)* In Table 1, comparative data on the enrollments and demographic charac- 
teristics of full-time students are given to provide the reader with a point of 
reference* It should be noted, for example, that In fall 197^: 

• Three In four of the million full-time students were enrolled In 
publ Ic Institutions 

• Approximately 12 percent were members of minority groups (estimates 
based on 1972 enrollment data) 

• About 57 percent of the students were men 

• Fewer than one-fourth were enrolled In two-year colleges 

• Graduate students made up less than one-eighth of the total enrollment. 

Characteristics of Aid Recipients 

Of the estimated 6*4 million full-time students enrolled In the nation's 
colleges and universities at the beginning of the 197^" 75 academic year, about one 
In four (1,6 million) received aid from one or more of the six Office of Education 
programs under consideration* Of these aid recipients, just over one million 
(almost two-thirds) attended public Institutions, and 551 ,000 were In private 
Institutions (Table 2)* By type of institution* over half of the aid recipients 
(839*000) were enrolled In four-year colleges, about equally divided between public 
and private; slightly under a quarter (371,000) were enrolled In two-year colleges, 
90 percent of them In public colleges; and another quarter (374,000) were enrolled 
In universities, three-fourths of them In public Institutions* 

Minority-Group Membership * About one In three assisted students was a member 
of a minority group (Black Americans, American Indians, Asian-Americans, or 

o 12 

ERIC 



-5- 

Spanlsh-surnamed Americans), !n public institutions, 38 percent of the aid reci- 
pients were minority students, compared with 25 percent in private institutions 
(Table 3), Almost half of the aid recipients enrolled at public two-year colleges 
were minority students, whereas at the private two-year colleges, only one-fourth 
were minori ty-group members. Similarly, minority students constituted a larger 
proportion of aid recipients at public (38 percent) than at private (25 percent) 
four-year institutions. The figure for aid recipients who were minority students 
was the same at public and at private universities: one In four. 

Minority participation varied considerably from one program to another. For 
example, almost half of those receiving BEOG and SEOG awards — but only one-fifth 
of the SSIG and GSL recipients — were minority students (Table 4), though at 
private two-year colleges and public universities, they accounted for a markedly 
smaller share (ranging from 31 to 41 percent) of the BEOG and SEOG awards (Tables 
5 and 6), In the College Work-Study (CWS) program^ minority participation ranged 
from 27 to 33 percent at all types of public and private institutions except for 
the publfc two-year colleges, where minority involvement was much heavier (45 
percent) (Table 7)* Minority students were less Ifkely to participate In the 
Guaranteed Student Loan program than In any other OE assistance programs, account' 
ing for fewer than one In five such loans at both public and private Institutions 
(Table 9) . 

Sex Distribution * Although only 43 percent of all full-time students attending 
the nation's colleges and universities In 1974-75 were women, they constituted 51 
percent of the aid recipients* This proportion varied among types of institutions, 
from a high of 57 percent at public two-year colleges to a low of 43 percent at 
private universities (Table 3)* 

The participation of women varied among the Individual programs as well* For 
instance, women received about 54 percent of the BEOU . od SEOG grants and work- 
study awards and about half of the SS)G grants and NUSL loans; but only 46 percent 



of the GSL loans were taken by women (Table 4)* 

Faml 1y Income Status * More than three In four aid recipients were dependent 
undergraduates (that Is, they received substantial support from their families); 
one In five was an Independent undergraduate; and one tn twenty was a graduate 
student {Table 3)- Of the aid recipients classified as dependent undergraduates, 
43 percent came from families with gross Incomes under $7»500; 32 percent from 
families with incomes ranging between $7,500 and $11,999; and 25 percent from 
families with incomes of $12,000 or more^. 

While dependent undergraduates were strong participants In all six aid 
programs, the student's family income level was related to participation In the 
individual programs* *n>s, lower-Income (gross family Income under $7,500) 
dependent undergraduates were more likely to benefit from need-based grants and 
less likely to take GSL loans; mi ddle- I ncome ($7,500-$l 1 ,999) dependent under- 
graduates were equally Involved In all programs except GSL; and h i gher- 1 ncome 
($12,000 or more) dependent undergraduates received little help from grants 
programs but were Involved in the loan programs and in College Work-Study (Table 4). 

In addition, there were variations by Institutional type and control. For 
example, lower-income dependent students accounted for at least half of the BEOG 
and SEOG awards In practically all Institutional settings, their participation being 
highest in public four-year colleges (Tables 5 and 6). Higher-Income dependent 
students were particularly likely to be Involved in CWS if they attended a private 
institution: 28 percent of CWS participants at private Institutions were in this 
category, compared with 11 percent at public institutions (Table 7)- A similar 
pattern is evident with respect to the National Direct Student Loan program: 
Higher-Income dependent undergraduates accounted for almost one-third of the NDSL 

^Note that the text often refers to dependent undergraduates distributed by 
family Income, whereas the tables distribute aid recipients by the five status 
categories rather than family income alone* 



14 



-7- 



loans at private I nstt tut tons , compared with only 14 percent at public institutions 
(Table 8). The participation of higher-Income dependent undergraduates In the GSL 
program was twice as great in public Institutions, and three times as great In the 
private Institutions, as the participation of lower"income dependent students. 

Overall, three In ten of the aid recipients at private Institutions (more than 
twice as many as recipients at public Institutions) were dependent undergraduates 
from higher-income families, a difference explained in part by the substantially 
higher costs (for tuition and living expenses) at private' institutions (see below 
and Table 10) . 

Gr aduate Students and Independent Undergraduates . Although in the aggregate 
only one In twenty aid recipients was enrolled In a graduate program, graduate 
students made relatively heavy use of the GSL program, especially at private 
universities, where they accounted for almost two-fifths of the estimated 95,000 
GSl loans (Table 9), (it should be noted that graduate students are eligible 
for only three of the six OE assistance programs considered In the survey,) 

independent undergraduate students tended to participate In all six programs 
in close proportion to their representation among aid recipients. The proportion 
of these students receiving aid at public Institutions was more than double the 
proportion at private institutions (22 percent vs, 9 percent). 

Costs of Attending 

For the 1974-75 academic year, basic tuition combined with room and board costs 
for in-state students attending public institutions averaged just under $1,400, 
The average costs at private Institutions were more than $3,30o (Table 10). Student 
charges varied substantially by type of Institution, with public two-year colleges 
being least costly ($1,220) and private universities most expensive ($4,060), 
Differences In costs are attributable chiefly to differentia) tuition rates, which 
averaged five times higher at private than at public two-year colleges and four 

o 15 

ERIC 



times higher at private than at public four-year colleges and universities, 

^s Table 10 Indicates, tuition costs were closely related to the attendance 
lev&£S of need^based aid recipients. Among public institutions, the higher the 
proportion of students receiving need-based assistance, the higher the mean tuition 
charge (ranging from $300 at Institutions enrolling fewer than 20 percent of these 
students to $6lO at institutions enrolling 8o percent or more). The opposite 
relationship obtained, however, at private institutions; That is, those with small 
proportions of students receiving need-based assistance had substantially higher 
average tuitions than did those with large proportions of such students. These 
findings suggest that (1) at those public Institutions where tuition costs were 
nominal, the full complement of eligible students did not apply for aid (it may be 
that eligible students elected to attend higher-cost public institutions); and 
(2) eligible students at private institutions were more likely to attend those with 
lower tuition rates. 

Average Assistance Awards 

Assistance awards ranged from an average of $5^*0 in the SEOG program to an 
average of $1,250 In the GSL program (Table 11)* In all but the CWS program, 
average awards were substantially higher at private than at public Institutions. 
Average awards In four of the six assistance programs (BEOG, SEOG, NDSL, and GSL) 
were lowest at public two-year institutions* 

Sources of Student Aid 

Respondents were asked to estimate the dollar amount of student aid available 
through their institutions during the 197^*^75 academic year, excluding programs 
which involved their institutions only Indirectly (e,g*. Guaranteed Student Loans, 
Veterans Educational Benefits) and which were not a part of their revenue or 
expenditure accounts* Their estimates included grants, loans, work^study, fellow^ 
ships and all other funds whose principal purpose was to aid undergraduate or 
^ graduate students* ^ ^ 

FRIC ^ ^ 



As Table 12 Indicates, a total of approximately $3.9 billion In student aid 
funds was available among the 3>021 Institutions In the population. The 1,443 
public institutions accounted for just over $2 billion, about 47 percent of those 
student aid resources being federal In origin, compared with only 30 percent of 
those reported by the private Institutions. The private Institutions, on the 
other hand* drew more heavily on Internal resources, their general funds providing 
four of every ten dollars available for student aid. More than three-fourths of 
this amount was given directly through grants, loans, work-study payments, etc, and 
approximately one-fourth was given in the form of tuition waivers and remissions. 
In the public sector. Institutional general funds accounted for only 26 percent of 
student aid resources. Public and private Institutions received about the same 
proportions of student aid funds from state and local governments (20 percent) and 
from private donors (slightly less than 10 percent). 

Looking at the distribution of student aid funding sources, we find that, over- 
all, the two-year colleges accounted for 11 percent, the four-year colleges for 
slightly more than one-half (53 percent), and the universities for the remaining 
36 percent. Of student enrollments, however, these Institutional types accounted 
for 24 percent, 45 percent, and 32 percent, respectively. The federal government 
was the predominant source of student aid funds for all the Institutional categories 
except private four-year colleges and private universities, where Institutional 
sources made up a larger proportion of the funds. This was particularly the case 
at private universities, where combined Institutional sources provided 45 percent 
of the available aid, compared with only l^ percent from federal sources. The 
two-year institutions (both public and private) were distinctive In several respects 
Federal funds made up a far greater share of their aid resources than those of 
four-year colleges and universities. Concomitantly Institutional sources and 
private donors combined accounted for only a small share (18 percent public; 26 



17 



-10- 



percent private), compared with four-year institutions (32 percent public; 48 
percent private) and universities (44 percent public; 5^ percent private). 

Sugges t i ons for I mp rovemen t 

The survey invited the responding aid officers to give suggestions for 
improving student aid at thel r i nst I tutions. Speci f ical ly, they were aslced: 
''Apart from increasing funding levels, what major change(s) or mod I fi cat ion (s) 
in federal policy would best contribute to Improving student assistance at your 
Institution?' Nearly half of the survey respondents offered more than ^50 
separate suggestions, which were classified under two main headings: administration 
and program design (Table 13). 

The most frequently mentioned administrative issues were receiving earlier 
notification of program funding levels (62 Institutions) and having commom appli- 
cation forms and requirements for all campus-based programs (43 institutions). In 
addition public colleges and universities were particularly interested In the 
provision of administrative allowances for non-campus-based programs and In more 
rapid processing of BEOG awards and payments. 

In the area of program changes, It was frequently suggested that the needs 
formula be made uniform for all programs (31 institutions). Moreover, public 
institutions were apt to recommend that It be made easier to transfer funds be- 
tween campus-based programs and that carryover of funds be permitted; that various 
work restrictions under the College Work-Study program be eliminated; and that 
BEOG money be transferred Into the three campus-based programs. Whereas 14 of 
the public institutions Indicated concern about various groups of low-income, 
independent, and graduate students, 13 of the private institutions focused thetr 
comments on the need to make more aid available to middle-Income students* 



18 



-n- 



References 



Bureau of Postsecondary Education, Office of Education. Factbook . U. S. 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 197^. 

Consortium on Financing Higher Education. Federal Student Assistance: A 
Review of title IV of the Higher Education Act . Hanover, New Hampshire, 
April, J975. 

El-Khawas, Elaine H., and Kinzer, Joan L. The Impact of Office of Education 
Student Assistance Programs, Fall^ 1973 . HEP Report No. lb. Washington, 
D.C.: American Council on Education, 197^^. 

Gladleux, Lawrence E. Distribution of Federal Student Assistance: The 

Enigma of the Two"Year Colleges . New York: College Entrance Examination 
Board, 1975. 

National Center for Education Statistics, Education Division. The Condition 
of Education . Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1975. 

Office of Civil Rights. Racial and Ethnic Enrollment Data for Institutions 
of Higher Education^ Fal 1 , 1972 . Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government 
Printfng Office, 197^. 



ERLC 



19 



Tables 



20 



Table I 



Comparative Demographic Characteristics 
Full-Tirne Students 





Total 


Institutions 


Public 


Institutions 


Private 


Institutions 


Characteristics 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Total Students 
Female 
Ma^e 


6. WO, 770 
2.75^.75ti 
3.676.012 


100.0 
V2';8 
57.2 


^1.761 ,091 
2,0^*6,755 
2,7li|,336 


100.0 
A3.0 
57.0 


1,669,679 
708,003 
961,676 


100.0 
■■ ■i|2.1t 
57.6 


HI norl ty 
Nonminori ty 


736.642 
5.391.665 


12.0 
88.0 


57I,0ii5 
3,990, 1 Ii6 


12.5 
87.5 


165,597 
I,ii01,5l9 


10.5 
89.5 


Undergraduates 
First professional 
Graduate students 
Not classified 


5.057.950 
216.329 

111? 

n5,5iii 


86.9 
3-7 

2.0 


3,737,7't3 
99,'i6'i 
295,3^3 
89,055 


88.5 
2.U 
7.0 
2.1 


1,320,207 
116,865 

1 32,200 

26,459 


82.7 
7.3 
0.3 
1.7 


Universities 
Total 
Fema 1 e 
Male 


2,028,762 
8l2,li53 
1,216,309 


100.0 
liO.O 
60.0 


1 ,538,901 
633,539 
905,362 


100. 0 
III. 2 
58.8 


it89,861 
178,914 
3l0,9ii7 


100.0 
36.5 
63.5 


Four-Year CoUeqes 
Total 
Female 
Male 


2,867,8ii6 
1,298,380 
I,569,ii66 


100.0 
ii5.3 
5I1.7 


1,786,1168 
823,171 
963,297 


100.0 
I16.I 
53.9 


1,081,378 
ii75,209 
606,169 


100.0 
ii3.9 
56.1 


Two-Year Colleges 
Total 
Feinale 
Male 


l,53i|,I62 
6ii3,925 
890,237 


100.0 
l|2.0 
58.0 


1,^135,722 
590,0ii5 
8ii5,677 


100.0 
III. I 
58.9 


98,i|ii0 
53,880 
i|i|,560 


100.0 
5I1.7 
ii5.3 



Note: Data pertaining to minority status were obtained from Racial and Ethnic Enrollment Data from Institutions of Higher 
Education Fa 1 1 1972 . U*S* Department of Health. Education and Welfare. \37k. Data pertaining to level of study are 
HE61S 1974 opening fal! enrollment data and were obtained by telephone* They include only the fifty states and the 
District of Columbia and therefore do not add to the reported totals, which also include outlying areas and terri* 
tories. All other data come from summary tables showing \37k opening fall enrollment. In higher education. 
National Center for Education Statistics. U* S» Department of Health. Education and Welfare, prepubl Icatlon release. 
November 197^* 



Table 2 



Percent Distribution of Students Receiving Aid Under Office of Education Assistance Programs, by 

Control and Type of Institution, 137^-75 





Institutional 
Characteristics 


a 

Tribal 
1 Ota 1 

(Undupl Icated 
Count) 


Recipients 


^ t V U 

Recipients 


b 

SSI G 
Reel plents 


Reel ptents 


HDSL 
Red pients 


GSL 
Rec I p I en ts 


Total 


1,58^,000 


5«,000 


350,000 


302,000 


575,000 


7^3,000 


669,000 


Control 
















Public 
Private 
Total 


65*2 
100.0 


77.3 
22.7 
100.0 


68.7 
31.3 
100.0 


A8.7 
51.3 
100.0 


63.0 
37.0 
100.0 


56.8 
A3. 2 
100.0 


56.4 
A3. 6 
100.0 


Tjtee 
















Public Two- Year 
Private Two* Year 
Public Four*year 
Private Four-Year 
Publ Ic University 
Private Unlversl ty 


2M 
2.3 
26.5 
26.5 
17.7 
5.9 


38.8 
3.1 
26.5 
16.3 
12.0 
3.3 


21.2 
2.1 
31.3 
Ik J 
16.2 
A. 5 


13.1 
3.2 
17.1 
38.2 
18.5 
10.0 


18.3 
2.6 
30.5 
23.0 
H.I 
5.A 


7.9 
2.2 
28.0 
32.2 
20.9 
8.8 


5.2 
\.k 
27.5 
28.0 
23.7 
\k.l 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


lOO.Q 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 



Excludes Guvanteed Student Loan Program. 



All numbers pertaining to the SSVG recipients are Inflated since many Institutions were unable to report these 
recipients separately. The reported numbers Include many students (more than half) who receive only state funds 
and no federal scholarship support. 

NOTE : All tables show weighted national estimates unless spec! f !ct^l ly stated otherwise* On this and subsequent 
tables, numbers of recipients are rounded to the nearest thousand. 

Totals may not add due to rounding « 



Table 3 



Characteristics of Al 1 Students (Undupl Icated Count)^ Receiving Afd Under Office of Education 
Assistance Programs, by Type and Control of Institution, 1971*" 75 

(In Percentages) 



r hi fir* f 1 c t c 


Total 
1 ns ^ 1 1 ons 


Public Institutions 


Private Institutions 


Total 


Two-Yea r 


Four- Year 


Unl vers! ty 


Total 


Two- Year 


Four- Year 


Uni vers I ty 


I o^a 1 




1 ,03it,000 


335,000 


l|19,000 


280,000 


551 ,000 


36,000 


l|20,000 


9I|,000 


LCrm 1 C b rOUp 




















n 1 nor i ty 




38.3 


l|9.l| 


38.0 


2l|.7 


2I|.8 


25.5 


2l|.8 


2I|.7 


nonni J no r i ^y 




61.7 


50.6 


62.0 


75.3 


75.2 


7i»-5 


75.2 


75.3 


Total 


100. 0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Sex 






















51 0 


52.3 


56.5 


50.6 


Ii9.3 


i»8.7 


50.0 


l|9.9 


l|2.6 


Male 


l|9.0 


l|7.7 


l|3.5 


119.11 


50.7 


51.3 


50.0 


50. 1 


57.i| 




100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Status 




















Dependent Undergraduates 




















Faml ly 1 ncome 




















Less than $7,500 


33.3 


35.6 


33.0 


III. 8 


31.3 


28.2 


38.0 


28.6 


22.7 


$7,;iOO - $11,999 


2l|.8 




2l|.5 


23.6 


25.3 


25.8 


31.1 


26.3 


21.6 


More than $1 1,999 


19.1 


Ili.O 


12.9 


13.6 


16.5 


30.0 


21.0 


32.2 


2I|.I| 


Independent Undergraduates 


18.0 


22.0 


29.6 


16.2 


17.i| 


9.3 


9.9 


8.5 


12. i» 


Graduate Students 


i|.8 


3.9 




i|.8 


9.5 


6.8 




l|.5 


18.9 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 



Excludes Guaranteed Student Loan program. 



Table It 



Percentage of Students Receiving Aid Under Office of Education Assistance Programs, by 
Selected Characteristics of Recipients, 197^^75 







Total ^ 


BEOG 


SEOG 


SSIG^ 


CWS 


NDSL 


G5L 


Characteristics 


(Undupl 1 cated 
Count) 


Red pi ents 


Recipients 


Recipients 


Recipients 


Recipients 


Recipients 


Total 


1,58ii,000 


5^i3.000 


350.000 


302,000 


575.000 


749,000 


669,000 


Ethnic Group 
















Minority 


33*6 


48.1 


ii7.8 


21 ,0 


32.6 


28,9 


18,0 


Nonminori ty 


66. It 


52,0 


52.3 


79.0 


67.5 


71- 1 


82,0 


Total 


100,0 


100*0 


TOO.O 


100.0 


100.0 


100,0 


TOO.O 


Sex 
















Fema T e 


5K0 


5^1.5 


5^1,1 


It9.6 


5ii.O 


k9,6 


1(5.8 


Hale 


ii9*0 




ii5.9 


50, ii 


46,0 


50, k 


5k.2 


Total 


100*0 


100,0 


loo.o 


100,0 


100,0 


100.0 


100.0 


Status 
















Dependent Undergraduates 
















Fami Ty Income 
















Less than $7*500 


33,3 


53.5 


5^*,3 


3^,8 


38,5 


30.8 


13,5 


$7,500 - $11,999 




25.3 


22. i| 


27,5 


25,9 


2k, 7 


18,2 


^tore than $11,999 


19J 


7,3 


5.3 


25,2 


17,2 


2\.k 


37,3 


Independent Undergraduates 


!8,0 


T^i.O 


18, T 


12.5 


14.5 


17,0 


15.6 


Graduate Students 


ii,8 








3.9 


6,t 


15. ti 


Total 


100,0 


100,0 


100.0 


100,0 


100.0 


100,0 


100.0 



Excludes Guaranteed Student Loan program. 

All numbers pertaining to the SS1G recipients are inflated since many Institutions were unable to report these recipients 
separately. The reported numbers Include many students {more than half) who receive only state funds and no federal 
scholarship support. 



Table 5 



Characteristics of Participants In the Basic Educational Opportunfty Grant Program 
tBEOG), by Type and Control of Institution, 197^-75 
(In Percentages) 



Charactertstfcs 


Total 
Institutions 


Publtc Institutions 


Private Institutions 


Total 


Two- Year 


Foup-Vear 


Unl vers? ty 


Total 


Two- Yea r 


1 

f Fou r-Vear 


Uni vers i ty 


lota 1 


5W,000 


419 000 


210 000 


I 44 000 




1 Aj f uuu 


1 / f uuu 




1 0, uuu 


tannic uroup 




















Ml nor 1 ty 


^8, 1 


49.2 


54.7 


48.3 


34.0 


44.0 


31.2 


44.9 


51.4 


ftonmi ncn ty 


52, 0 


50.8 


45.3 


51.7 


66.0 


56.0 


68.8 


55.1 


48.6 


Tota 1 


100. 0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Sex 




















Female 


5^.5 


55.2 


57.0 


54.4 


50.8 


52.4 


47.9 


54.7 


44.8 


Ha f e 




44.9 


43.0 


45.6 


49.2 


47.6 


52.1 


45.3 


55.2 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Status 




















Dependent Undergraduates 




















Family Income 




















Less than $7,500 


53.5 


54.4 


53.3 


58.2 


50.5 


50.1 


48.4 


50.2 


51.3 


$7,500 - $11,999 


25.3 


23.2 


20.7 


24.1 


29.5 


32.5 


34.4 


32.3 


32.0 


More than $1 1,999 


7.3 


6.6 


4.7 


7.9 


9.9 


9.8 


9.0 


9.7 


n.3 


Independent Undergraduates 


lA.O 


15.9 


21.3 


9.8 


10.1 


7.6 


8.3 


7.8 


5.5 


Graduate Students 




















Total 


100.0 


100. 0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 



ERIC 



Table 6 



Characteristics of Participants Tn the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 
Program (SEOG) , by Type and Control of fnstitutiont 197^-75 

(in Percentages) 



Characteristics 


1 oca 1 
1 nst i tutions 


Public Institutions 


Private Institutions 


Total 


Tv/o-Year 


Four- Year ; 


Unt vers! ty 


Total 


Two- Year 


Four-Year 


Uni vers i ty 


Total 


350,000 


2h \ ,000 


71 , 000 


109, 000 


b/f 000 


109,000 


7,000 


86 , 000 


16,000 


Ethnic Group 




















Minority 


47.8 


49.0 


55.7 


50.6 


38. 0 


45.0 


40.7 


44.8 


48.0 


fJonmi norl ty 


52.3 


51.0 




49.4 


62.0 


55.0 


59.3 


55.2 


52.0 


Total 


loo.o 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


loo.o 


100.0 


100.0 


Sex 




















Fernale 


54,1 


55-2 


59.4 


54.1 


52.1 


52.0 


57.8 


52.5 


46.8 


Hale 


45.9 


4^1.9 


40.6 


45.9 


47.9 


48.0 


42.2 


47.5 


53.2 


Total 


100,0 


100.0 


lOO-O 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Status 




















Oepandent Undergraduates 




















Fami ly 1 ncome 


54.3 


















Less than $7,500 


54,0 


45.2 


60.4 


53.2 


55.0 


55.5 


56.0 


49.1 


$7,500 - $11,999 


22.4 


19.2 


15.0 


19.8 


23.8 


29.1 


25.9 


28.2 


35.8 


I^re than $11*999 


5.3 


4.4 


3-6 


4.4 


5.6 


7.2 


n.i 


6.8 


8.5 


Independent Under<)raduates 


18. T 


22.5 


36.2 


15.4 


17.4 


8.7 


7.6 


9.1 


6.7 


Graduate Students 




















Total 


100,0 


loo.o 


100.0 


100.0 


loo.o 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 



Table 7 



Characteristics of Participants fn the College Work-Study Program (CWS) , by 
Type and Control of Institution, iS)74-75 
(In Percentages) 



Charac terlstlcs 


Total 
Insti tutlons 


Public Institutions 




Private 


Institutions 


Tota 1 


Two" Yea r 


Four-Year 1 


Uni versl tv 
university 


Total 


Two- Year 


Four- Year 


Un i ve rs i ty 


Total 


575.000 


Jv£. fVvv 






Ol ,000 




1 c flflfl 


167,000 


3l ,000 


Ethnic Group 




















Hinorl ty 


32.6 


34.7 


44.6 


32.4 


27.2 


29.1 


30.5 


28.2 


33.1 


Nonmlnorlty 


67.5 




55.4 


67.7 


72.8 


71.0 


69.5 


71.8 


67.0 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 






















Female 


SH.O 


55.0 


57.3 


54.8 


52.5 


52.3 


46.2 


53.7 


47.2 


Male 


46.0 


45.0 


42.7 


45.2 


47.5 


47.7 


53.8 


46.3 


52.8 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Status 




















Dependent Undergraduates 




















Family Income 


38.5 


















Less than $7,500 


41.2 


44.9 


42.4 


33.8 


33.6 


47.8 


33.7 


26.4 


$7,500 - $11,999 


25.9 


24.8 


23.3 


26.3 


23.6 


28.0 


34.3 


27.8 


26.0 


More than $11 ,999 


J7.2 


10.9 


8.3 


11.8 


52.5 


26.4 


13.2 


29.0 


32.1 


Independent Undergraduates 


U.5 


19.1 


23.5 


16.1 


20.0 


6.3 


4.7 


6.7 


5.0 


Graduate Students 


3.9 


4.0 




3.5 


10.2 


3.8 




2.8 


10.6 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 



ERIC 



Table 8 



Characteristics of Participants in the National Direct Student Loan Program (NDSL) » 
by Type and Control of Institution, 1974"75 
(In Percentages) 



Characteristics 


Total 
Institutions 


Publtc Institutions 


Private Institutions 


Total 


Two-Yea r 


Four- Year 


Un I vers T tv 


Total 


j Two-Yea r 


l^5ur-Year 


Uni vers i ty 


Tota 1 


7^9,000* 


425,000 


59,000 


210,000 


157,000 


324,000 


17,000 


241 ,000 


66,000 






















1 1 1 1 1 VI t 




32.0 


l»1.3 


33.2 


26.9 


24.8 


23.6 


24.6 


25.9 


Nonmf norl tv 


71 1 
/ 1 • 1 


68.0 


58.8 


66.8 


73.2 


75.2 


76.4 


75.4 


74.1 






100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


IDO.O 


Sex 




















Female 




51.1 


55.5 


52.1 


48.2 


47.6 


55.0 


49.3 


39.7 


Hale 


50. A 


48.9 


44.5 


47.9 


51.8 


52.4 


45.0 


50.7 


60.3 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


1 00.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Status 




















Dependent Undergraduates 




















Family Income 


30.8 


34.0 


38.0 


35.8 












Less than $7.50D 


29.7 


26.4 


32.2 


28.0 


19.3 


$7,500 - $11,939 




23.5 


17.3 


25-0 


24.1 


26.3 


26.8 


27.6 


21.6 


More than $1K999 


21. A 


13.7 


5.9 


14.7 


15.6 


32.1 


25.8 


32.4 


32.6 


Independent Undergraduates 


17.0 


22.8 


38.8 


19.8 


20.3 


8.8 


15.2 


9.1 


6.2 


Graduate Students 


6.1 


6.0 




4.6 


10.3 


6.4 




2.8 


20.3 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


IpO .0 



Table 3 



Characteristics of Participants In the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSL), 
by Type and Control of Institution, ]97k'75 
(tn Percentages) 



CO 

CO 



Characteristics 


Tota 1 
Insti tutlons 


Public Institutions 


Private Institutions 


Total 


Two- Vea r 


Four- Year 


Unt versi t^ 


Total 


Two- Year 


Four-Year 


Un J ve rs i ty 


Total 


669.000 


377,000 


35,000 


18*1,000 


158,000 


292,000 


9,000 


187,000 


95,000 


Ethnic Group 


18,0 


















Hinori ty 


17.7 


21,1 


19.6 


15,0 


18,3 


7,8 


1i|.3 


26,6 


Nonml norT ty 


82,0 


82,3 


78,9 


80, i| 


85,0 


81,7 


92,2 


85,7 


73, k 


Total 


100,0 


100,0 


100.0 


100,0 


100,0 


100,0 


100,0 


100.0 


100,0 


Sex 




















Female 


ii5,8 


ii7,l 


117,0 


119.9 


kk,\ 


kk.3 


39,3 


ii6,3 


110,7 


Male 


5*1,2 


52,9 


53,0 


50.1 


55,9 


55,7 


60.7 


53.7 


59,3 


Total 


100.0 


100.0 


100,0 


100,0 


100,0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


100.0 


Status 




















Dependent Undergraduates 




















FaniMy Income 




















less than $7,500 


13,5 


li|.8 


18,1 


16,9 


12,1 


11.8 


22.3 


11.9 


10,8 


$7,500 - $11,999 


18,2 


17,6 


15,^1 


19,9 


15,9 


18,9 


30.2 


19,i| 


17,1 


More than $11,999 


37,3 


33,0 


18,9 


36,2 


32,8 


ii2,7 


ii0.6 


50,9 


26, i| 


Independent Undergraduates 


15,6 


22.0 


ii7.6 


17,8 


21,1 


7,5 


7,0 


7,7 


7,1 


Graduate Students 


15. 


12,5 




9,2 


18,0 


19.1 




10,2 


38,7 


Total 


100,0 


100,0 


100,0 


100.0 


100.0 


100,0 


100,0 


100,0 


100,0 



Table 10 

Mean Costs to Undergraduates of Attending Public and Private Institutions in 197^-75* 

by Selected Characteristics 
(In Dollars) ^ 



CO 
O 







Public 




Private 


Characteristics 


Mean Undergraduate Mean 
Tuition (in-state) 


Room & Board 


Mean Undergraduate 
Tul tlon 


Mean Room & Board 


Total 


$ ^too 


$ 990 


$ 2,110 


$ 1.230 


Type 

Two- Year 
Four- Year 
UniversI ty 


300 
550 
620 


920 
1,060 
1.230 


1.700 
2.170 
2.620 


1 .180 
1.230 
l.ititO 



Proportion of Students 
Receiving Need-Based 
Ass I stance 



Less than 20% 
Z0% - 39^ 
m - 53% 
60? - 73% 
80? - 100^ 



300 
itOO 
520 
5'tO 
610 



960 
1 .000 
1 .O^tO 

950 
1.000 



2.390 
2.350 
2,080 
2,030 
1 .610 



1.290 
1.320 
1.220 
t.170 
1.090 



Costs rounded to nearest ten dollars. 



Table It 



ERIC 



Average Amount of Asststance Awarded Under Office of Education Assistance 
Programs, by Control and Type of Institution, t97^»-75 

(in DoHars)^ 





Institutional 














Characteristics 


BEOG 


SEOG 


ssig'' 


CWS 


NDSL 


GSL 


Total 


$ 620 


$ 5kO 


$ 600 


$ 560 


$ 690 


$ t.250 


Control 














Public 


610 






600 


630 


I.I90 


Private 


670 


660 


700 


510 


770 


1.330 



OS 



Type 

Publ ic Two-Year 
Private Two-Year 
Public Four-Year 
Private Four-Year 
Public University 
Private University 



580 
680 
640 
660 
630 
660 



itOO 
it70 
kSO 
660 
610 
7'tO 



560 
770 
480 
710 
460 
630 



610 
440 
540 
490 
700 
660 



440 
790 
600 
730 
760 
930 



970 
1.740 
1.180 
1.280 
1.250 
1.390 



I 

fO 

I 



Awards rounded to nearest ten dollars* 

'^All numbers pertaining to the SSIG recipients are Inflated since many Institutions were unable to report 
these recipients separately* The reported numbers Include many students (more than half) who receive only 
state funds and no federal scholarship support* 



Table 12 



Source and Amount of Funds Available for Underoraduste and 
Graduate Students, by Type and Control of Institution, 197^*- 75 

(in Percentages) 



Source of Funds 



Total 
Institutions 



Public Institutions 



Total Tvw-Year Four-Year 



Un! vers I ty^ 



Private Institutions 



Total Two-Year jFour-Year 



Uni vers i ty 



OS 



Total Dollar Amount 
(in mlUions) 

Distribution : 

Federal So u rces ^ 
Institutional Sources: 
Di rect 

Tui tion Waivers 
and Remissions 

State and Local 

Government Sources 

Private Donors 

Total 



$3,926.8 

38.8 
26.0 
6.8 

19.7 
8.6 

100.0 



52,026.7 $ 3^(9.8 $ 850.5 



1*6.3 
21. 6 
4.6 

T8.7 
8.2 

100.0 



68.5 
9.9 
3.i( 

13.2 
5.0 

100.0 



iiS.3 
19.7 
3.'* 

22.2 
8.7 

100.0 



$ mA 

38.3 
28.8 
6.5 



17.3 
9,1 

100.0 



$1,900.1 $ 78.8 $1,223.7 $ 597.6 



30. ti 
30.7 
9.1 

20./ 
9.1 



50.7 
16.0 



23.5 



100.0 100.0 



30.8 
31.7 
6.9 

21.6 
9.0 

100.0 



Not included are programs which are not part of the revenue or expenditure accounts of institutions, e.g.. Veterans 
Educational Benefits, Social Security Student Benefits, Guaranteed Student Loans. 



27.2 
30.7 
13.9 

18.5 
9.7 

100.0 



I 

I 



ERIC 



Table 13 



Suggestions by Instf tutfonal ftepresentatfves of Changes \n Federal Policy to 
Improve Student Assistance ProgramSf by Control of Institution 

(unweighted Numbers) 







Total 


Pub i I c 


P r i va te 


Suggestions 1 ns tl tutf ons 


Institutions 


Institutions 




(W=230) 


(n=ioo) 


(n=I 30) 


Total 




22^1 


232 


Administrative 








Provide earlier notification of funding levels 


62 


25 


37 


Have comon application forms and reciuf rements for campus-^based programs 


43 


23 


20 


Provide administrative allowance for none ampus~ based programs 




20 


8 


Process BEOG awards and payments more rapidly 


22 


13 


9 


Make fewer revf s i ons 1 n programs , but use more 1 ns tl tut lonal 1 nput when 








rev 1 s 1 ons are necessary 


1 "7 


7 


10 


Provide guidelines on a more timely basis 


1 u 


A 

0 


6 


F"! Fmlnd^0 ^II£^l^^^1r^^ 1~Uf n Initial anri Cf\n t^iniitnn Q F^l^ n i*sn ^£ 
1 1 1 1111 no uiaLinwLiLin w irWetK n initial cinu vun Linuin^ ^ u y ron L9 


T 9 

1 £. 


6 


6 


Allow more autonomy for afd officers In determining most urgent aid needs 


10 


2 


8 


Other specific processing reconwnendatlons 


10 


4 


b 


Other specific administrative recommendations 


26 


1 1 


15 


Prog rammatlc 








Hake needs formula uniform for all programs 


31 


15 


16 


Provide easier transfer of funds between campus-based programs and allow 








carryover of funds 


28 


17 


1 1 


Other special Interest group recommendations 


20 


\k 


6 


Hake needs formula more equitable 


17 


1 


10 


Eliminate various restrictions regarding work under CWS 


17 


\ \ 


6 


Other needs formula recoimnendatlons 


16 


8 


8 


Provide more aid to middle Income students 


15 


2 


13 


Put BEOG funds Into the three campus-based progran^ 


12 


9 


3 


Haintain campus-bas^d programs 


12 


5 


7 


Unify all progrcims 


9 


5 


k 


Other specific fJrogram recommendations 


35 


12 


23 



Appendix A: Survey Instrument 




34 



American Council on Education 

ONe DUPONT CiRCLe 
WASHINGTON* D* C* 20036 



HIGHER eOUCATtON PANEL 



March 31, 1975 



Dear Higjier Education Panel R^resentative: 

Enclosed is the Higjier Education Panel Survey #27 - Student Assistance 
Programs. As you may know, many changes in student aid legislation are now 
being considered in the Congress and elsewhere, and the results of this 
survey will be extremely useful. 

We have field-tested each of the requested items and have revised the 
survey content to ease the reporting burden as much as possible. We know 
that for some institutions this survey may prove to be difficult because 
record-keying practices and information systems vary greatly in different 
school settings. We hope to obtain as reliable infoimation as possible, but 
we do recognize the necessity of sometiines providing estijuates, especially 
for student aid programs such as work-^study for which the figures are lilcely 
to increase througjiout the school year. 

We anticipate that you, the Panel Ryresentative , will probably have to 
obtain much of the requested information from the student aid office at your 
institution during this busy time of the year. Needless to say, we are very 
grateful for your coraibined efforts to respond to this important survey in a 
timely fashion. 

Please do your best to conqjlete and return the survey form by April 18. 
A self- addressed stan^ied envelope is enclosed for your convenience. As usual, 
please be assured that individual responses will be held in strict confidence 
and that results will be ryorted only by institutional groupings. We will 
send you the report on this survey as soon as it is coji5)leted. 

Once again, thank you for your continuing strpport of the Higjier Education 
Panel surveys. If you have any questions or problems with this survey, please 
do not hesitate to call us (collect) at 202-833-4757. 



Sincerely, 




Frank Atelsek 
Director 



35 



'32' 



Higher Education Pane! Survey Number 27 
Student Assistance Programs 

Instructions artd Definitions 



Question ii^l * '*Need-based" refers to assistance available to students on the 

basis of financial need. Do not count students receiving awards 
based only on scholastic merit or achievement. 

Question §1 - **Tuition and Required Fees" - If your Institution has tuition and 
fees differing on the basts of class, department, etc., please 
provide an average figure. 

Question §3 " Have your estimate include grants, loans, work-study, fellowships, 
scholarships, and all other funds whose principal purpose is aiding 
students. Note the specific inclusions and exclusions listed below. 

"Federal Sources" - Include Basic Educational Opportunity Grants. 
Do not include any programs which only Indirectly involve your 
Institution and are not part of the revenue or expenditure accounts 
of your Institution (e.g.. Veterans Educational Benefits, Social 
Security Student Benefits, Guaranteed Student Loans, State Student 
incentive Grants, etc.). 

"Tuition Waivers and Remissions" " Although institutional financial 
practices differ, tuition waivers and remissions are generally 
accounted for as a dollar amount In the Institutional general fund 
contribution to student aid. For purposes of this question, account 
for waivers and remissions In this maftner* 

"State and Local Government Sources" - State and local government 
money for grants, loans, fellowships, asslstantships, etc., whose 
principal purpose Is aiding students. 

Question §k - Include both undergraduate and graduate students in data for ethnic 
group, sex, and average amount of award. As a check, you will 
note that, ideally, the total should be the same for sex, ethnic 
group, and graduate and undergraduate students. 

Student Assistance Programs 

BEDG * Basic Educational Opportunity Grants 

SEOG - Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 

SSIG - State Student Incentive Grants 

CWS - Col lege Work-Study Program 

NDSL ' National Direct Student Loans 

GSL ^ Federally Guaranteed Student Loans 

'^Minority Students" Include U.S. citizens who are: 

1) Blacks/Negroes 

2) American Indians 

3) Asian Amer) cans 

Q k) Spanlsh-^urnaioed Americans (Mexican, Puerto Ftlcan, Cuban, 



ERIC 



or other Latin Americans) 

36 



Instructions and Definitions (Conttnued) 



Question (conttnued) 



''FamI ly Inconie" Is the gross, unadjusted Income of the student 
famtty under consideration, as used in the col lege^based financial 
aid program. 



II 



Independent Student" (as defined by iRS) Is a student who either: 



1) 



Has not or will not be claimed as an exemption by any person 
except his or her spouse for the calendar year in which aid Is 
requested; or 



2) 



Has not received and will not receive financial assistance of 
more than $600 from his or her parents. 



Please leave no empty spaces. If the number of students in a particular category 
is zero, put "0" In the appropriate space. If the information Is unavailable, or 
unavailable In the form requested, so Indicate in the appropriate space. 

We expect some institutions will not be able to fully complete this table, parti- 
cularly the undupljcated counts. Please do not spend an inordinate amount of 
time and effort obtaining undupllcated counts If they are not reasonably accessible 
to you. 

Use estimates If actual data are not available, but label them as estimates. 



37 



ERIC 



'3^' 0MB No. 99-R0265. Exp. 6/75 



AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION 
HIGHER EDUCATION PANEL SURVEY NUMBER 27 

Student Assistance Programs 



K Approximately what percentage of your full-time undergraduate student body 
is receiving some form of need'^based'* student assistance? 

% 



2. Please Indicate 197^-75 student charges for full-time undergraduates at your 
institution for the following: 

Tuition and Required Fees* (in-state) $ 

Room and Board at your institution $ 



3. What Is the approximate dollar amount* of all student aid resources available 
this year at your Institution for both undergraduate and graduate students 
(Include student aid grants, loans, work-study, etc.)? 

$ 

Of this total, about what percentage comes; 

a) From Federal sources* % 

b) From general funds at your Institution 

1) Given directly (in the form of grants, 

loans, work-^study, etc.) % 

2) Given in the form of tuition waivers, 

and remissions* % 

c) From state and local government sources* % 

d) From private donors (money restricted to 

student aid, via scholarships, loans, etc*) % 



100% 



*See Instructions and Definitions 



38 



4. Estimated Number of Afd Recipients by Selected Characterls tics, 197^' 75 



1 
r 



ERIC 



Characteristics 


1 

BEOG 


S£OG 


SSIG 


cws 


NPSL 


GSL 


Total Undupllcated 
Count (excluding 
GSL) 


Total 
















Ethntc Group 
Minority 
















Monmlnorl ty 
















Sex 
Fema 1 e 
















Kale 
















"Dependent^' Undergraduates 
By FamI ly 1 ncome: 

Less tna n y /j ^vv 
















$7,500 - $11,999 
















$12,000 or more 
















Independent Undergraduates 
















Graduate Students (Depen- 
dent and Independent) 


XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 


XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX 


XXXXXXXXX 

xxxxxxxxx 










Average Amount of Award 

















5* Apart from Increasing funding levels, what major change(s} or modlf tcat]On(s) In federal policy would 
best contribute to Improving student assistance at your Institution? 



ii- in 
o o 

>- o 

O LU 

< cx: 
z o 

LU O 



LU >. 
in LU 

< ^ 



E O 
>- O 
O 



c 



o 



4) 

I 



O 



CO 



4 
















tH 
















iH 


o 








s 












_] o 


4-P JO 


LU LU O 




:z: o 




< Z r4 




fi- o 


cn O 


LU 




Z _] _] » 




O — * W 


>- w 


^ U K 4 


3 ^ 


H; Z ^ O 


O -C 


< O 


>■ *J 


O ^ 


3 t-> W a 


>- c 


o o 


>- 


;£ o f- 




< fi- C3 




cx: o z 




LU O — 


o >- 


:c cx: z 




O LU LU t/l 




^e: z < 




3: < o ^ 











Appendix B: Weighting Procedures 



ERIC 



40 



-39- 

Welqhtinq Procedures 

The survey Instrument was mailed to the entire membership of the Higher 
Education Panel (N=644) , By the deadline (june 30, 1975), 505 Institutions (78,8 
percent) had provided us;^Lr1e returns. 

The data reported by respondents were statistically adjusted to represent the 
total population of 3,021 colleges and universities In the United States* To 
develop these national estimates, each data Item was weighted, within each 
stratification cell, by the ratio of the number of Institutions In the eligible 
population to the number of Panel Institutions In that cell which responded to 
that particular Item. 

Four separate populations were used In weighting the responses to this survey* 
Data related to all students or alt institutions were weighted up to the entire 
population* For Items related solely to undergraduates (e,g,, ^1), the population 
dropped to 2,864 Institutions, eliminating the 157 Institutions which have no 
undergraduate enrollment* Likewise, for Items related solely to graduate students 
(e*g*, #4, row 10), the population Included only those 1,059 institutions which 
enroll graduate students. Finally, for the questions about the State Student 
Incentive Grant (SSIG) program In Item #4, a population was defined to Inclucfe only 
those Institutions located In states which participated In the SSIG program* 

Weights were computed separately to allow for differential Item response* 
The resulting cell and Item weights were applied to the responses of each 
Institution* The weighted data were then aggregated Into broad institutional 
categories appropriate to the survey analysis. 

The reader Is reminded that all data displayed In Tables 2 through 12 re- 
present independently computed population estimates* Because each data element 
was weighted separately, subtotals generally approximate, but may not add up to, 
their corresponding totals* 



Table B-I 

Stratification Design: 
Distribution by Current Enrollment of Population 
Panel , and Respondents 



Cell 
Number 



En ro 11 men t 
Category 



Population 
{N=302l) 



Panel 



Respondents 
(N=505) 



5 
6 
7 
8 

9 
10 
1 1 
12 

13 
III 
15 
16 

17 

18 
19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
2k 

25 
26 
27 
28 

29 
30 

31 
32 

33 
Sk 

35 
36 



Public Universities 
*I3,300 

13.300-18,999 
I9,000-2I| ,000 
>2i|,000 

Private Universities 
<6,000 

6,000-8,899 

8,900-13,100 
>I3,I00 

Public Four-Year Colleges 
< 2,800 

2,800-6,099 

6,100-1 1,500 
>n,500 

Private Honsectarian Four-Year Colleges 50^ I 06 

* 975 

975-1,399 
l,i|00-2,300 
>2,300 

Private Catholic Four-Year Colleges 
* 750 

750-1,199 
1,200-1,700 
>l,700 

Private Other Sectarian four- Year Col leges 

<~~5oo 

800-1,199 
1,200-1,700 
>l ,700 

Public Two-Year Colleges 
*1 ,900 
1,900-2,799 
2,800-5,700 
*5,700 

Private Two-Year Colleges 

< 500 

> 500 

Black Four-Year Colleges 
<1,100 
>l,IOO 

Black Two-Year Colleges 

< 500 

> 500 

Independent Medical Schools 

< 1,000 

> 1,000 



96 




73 


25 


22 


19 




zu 




^3 


^3 




25 


2h 


13 


66 


56 


^3 


17 


12 


9 


17 




10 


1 c 

1 5 






1 7 




IZ 




95 


79 


151 


23 




120 


21 


19 




27 


23 


51 


2h 


21 


5011 


106 


88 


302 


29 


25 


66 




20 




26 


Z 1 


73 


27 


zz 


257 


63 


51 




T5 


n 


58 


21 


1 7 








45 


18 




h36 


106 


o2 




J 1 


77 
^/ 


7II 


22 


15 


57 


2k 


17 


61 


25 


23 


888 


61 






19 




105 


13 


10 


|iiO 


12 


6 


137 


17 


13 


2ii8 


35 


22 


TfT 


TF 


12 


77 


17 


to 


87 


2k 


16 


3ff 


13 


7 


119 


11 


9 


16 


5 


1 


~5 


T 


2 


8 


2 


1 


12 


8 


i 


T 




1 


k 


k 


2 



O ^ Data based on T973"74 current enrollment reported In the Office of Education's 

||^P^(]; Education Directory 1973- 7^ . 



Table B-2 



Number of Institutions In the Population for HEP Survey j?27, 
Student Assistance: Participants and Programs, ]37k'75 
by Selected Characteristics 





Characteristics 


4 • a 
Populat ion 


Panel 


Responden ts 


Total 


3,021 




505 


Control 








Pub 1 1 c 


1 ,<><>3 


260 


205 


P r I va te 


1.578 


38 it 


300 


Type and Control 








Public TWO' Year Colleges^ 




63 


1*6 


Private Two^Year Colleges 


258 


38 


2k 


Public Four-Year Colleges 


'>53 


108 


86 


Private Four-Year Colleges 


1.253 


289 


232 


Publ ic Un iversi ties 


96 


89 


73 


Private Universities 


67 


57 




Undergraduate Enrollment (1973^7^*)*^ 




158 




<1,000 


1.231 


114 


l,000-'»,999 


853 


263 


206 


5,300-9,999 


308 


92 


77 


>9999 


3k\ 


131 


108 


^Survey population Includes only those 


Institutions 


listed In 


the Education 


Oi rectory 1973"7*»* 









Because the extremely low representation of two-year colleges in this survey 
(5 percent of public, 9 percent of private), caution should be exercised in 
interpreting the data relative to them. 



Population numbers for this category do not total 3,021 because CO 157 
institutions have no undergraduate enrollments, and (2) HEGIS enrollment 
data are not available for 131 Institutions. 



43 



Appendix C: Compartson of Respondents and Nonrespondents 



ERIC 



44 



-45- 



Comparlson of Respondents and Monrespondents 

The survey questionnaires were mailed to all 644 institutions (n the PaneK 
Three service academies were subsequently excluded from consideration because 
their students are supported wholly by federal funds* Of the remaining 641 
institutions, usable responses were received from 505, or 78*8 percent, before 
the deadline for return of questionnaires* 

Table C-1 presents a comparison of respondents and nonrespondents to the 
survey, together with response rates by various institutional characteristics. 

In general, respondents closely resembled nonrespondents^ particularly 
with respect to control of institution* The higher response rates, however, 
occurred among (]) public universities and four-year colleges (82 percent); 
(2) institutions located In the West (86 percent); and (3) institutions with 
large undergraduate enrollments, particularly between five and ten thousand 
students (84 percent), 

Response rates were lower than expected for (1) two-year colleges^ 
particularly private two-year colleges (63 percent); (2) colleges and unlversltl 
located in the South (74 percent); and (3) Institutions with fewer than UOOO 
undergraduates (73 percent) • 



ERIC 



Table C-1 

Comparison of Respondents and Non respondents to Survey ST] 
Student Assistance; Participants and Programs, 

(In Percentages) 





Characteristics 


Respondents 


Nonrespondents 


Response 




(N=505) 


(N=136) 


Rate 


Control 








Public 


ItO.6 


38,2 


79.8 


Private 


59. It 


61.8 


78.1 


Type & Control 








Public Two-Year 


9.1 


12.5 


73.0 


Private Two-Year 


it.8 


10.3 


63. 2A 


Publ ic Four-Year 


17.0 


iit.O 


81.9 


Pri vate Four-Year 




in. 9 


80.3 


Public University 


lit. 5 


11.8 


82.0 


Private University 


8.7 


9.6 


77.2 


Census Region 








East 


27.0 


28.9 


77.7 


Nortii Central 


29.2 


25.2 


81.2 


Soutii 


27.8 


36.3 


IhA 


West 


15.9 


9.6 


86.0 


Undergraduate Enrollment (1973-7'f) 






Less tiian 1 ,000 


22.6 


30.9 


73.1 


I,000-'^,999 


ItO.8 


itl.2 


78.6 


5,000-9,999 


15.2 


11 .0 


83.7 


10,000 and more 


21. It 


16.9 


82. It 


* Response rate falls 


siiort of tile overall 


response rate by 


more tiian 



10 percent. 



ERIC 



46 



Other Reports of the Higher Education Psnel 
American Council on Education 



Blaitdford, B, and Dutton, D, Survey of First-Year Graduate and Postdoctoral Enrollment in Science 
and Engineering, Higher Education Panel Report, No, 1, August, 197L 

BJandford, B, and Dutton, D, Research Support for Science Faculty. Higher Education Panel Report, 
No, X November, I97L 

Astin, A,, Blandford, B,, and Mahn, T, Freshman Class Vacancies in Fall 197] and Recent Trends m 
Enrollment of Minority Freshmen. Higher Education Panel Report, No. 3, February, 1972, 

Changes in Graduate Programs in Science and Engineering 1970-72 and 1972*^1974. Science Resources 
Studies Highlights, Washington: National Science Foundation, July, 1972, 

Blandford, B, and Sell, C, Enrollmentof Junior-Year Students (1970 and 1971), Higher Education Panel 
Report, No, 5, April, 1972, 

Trexler, J, and Blandford, B, What College Presidents Are Reading. Higher Education Panel Report, 
No, 6, March, 1972, 

Trexler, J, and Kent, L, Commercial Theme-Writing Services. Higher Education Panel Report, No, 7, 
June, 1972, 

Furniss, W, T, Faculty Tenure and Contract Systems: Current Practice. ACE Special Report, July, 1972, 

Bayer, A, E, and Astin, A, W, War Protest on U>S. Campuses During April, 19^, Higher Education 
Panel Report, No, 9, May, 1972, 

Blandford, B, A, and Trexler, J, C, Expected First- Year Graduate Enrollment in Science and Engineer- 
ing, Fall 1972> Higher Education Panel Report, No, 10, August, 1972, 

Blandford, B, A, Student Participation on Institutional Governing Boards. Higher Education Panel 
Report, No, 11, October, 1972, 

Dutton, J, E, and Blandford, B, A, Enrollment of Junior- Year Students (1971 and 1972)> Higher Educa- 
tion Panel Report, No, 12, April, 1973, 

Dutton, J, E, Courses and Enrollment in Ethnic/Racial Studies* Higher Education Panel Report, No, 14, 
August, 1973, 

Dutton, J, E, and Jenkins, M, D, The Urban Involvement of Colleges and Universities. Higher Educa- 
tion Panel Report, No, 15, August, 1973, 

Dutton, J, E, and El-Khawas, E, H, Production of Doctorates In Selected Fields, 1972-*197S> Higher 
Education Panel Report, No> 16, April, 1974, 

Dutton, J, E, First- Year Enrolbnent for Masters or Higher Degrees, Fall 1973, Higher Education Panel 
Report, No, 17, April, 1974, 

El-Khawas, E, H, and Kinzer, J, L, The Impact of Office of Education Student Assistance Programs, 
Fall 1973. Higher Education Panel Report, No, 18, April, 1974, 

El-Khawas, E, H, and Kinzer, J, L, Enrollment of Minority Graduate Students at Ph,D> Granting Insti- 
tutions> Higher Education Panel Report, No, 19, August, 1974, 

EI-Khawas, E, H, College and University Facilities: Expectations of Space and Maintenance Needs for 
Fall 1974, Higher Education Panel Report, No, 20, September, 1974, 

Kinzer, J, L, and El-Khawas, E, H, Compensation Practices for Graduate Research Assistants: A Survey 
of Selected Doctoral Institutions. Higher Education Panel Report, No, 21, October, 1974, 

El-Khawas, E, H, and Furniss, W, T, Faculty Tenure and Contract Systems: 1972 and 1974> Higher 
Education Panel Report^ No, 22^ [December, 1974, 

El-Khawas, E, H, and Kinzer, J, L, A Survey of Continuing Education Opportunities Available to 
Nonacademk Scientists, Engineers and Matliematicians, Higher Education Panel Report, No, 23, 
April, 1975, 

Atelsek, Frank J> and Gomberg, Irene L, Nonfederal Funding of Biomedical Research and Development: 
A Survey of Doctoral Institutions. Higher Education Panel Report, No, 25, July 1975, 

Single copies of the above reports may be obtained from the Higher Education Panel, Amerkan Council on Education, 
O One Dupont Circle, Washington, D,C. 20036, 

.ERJC